Flytdeck,
Methinks your post above is a tad misleading - hopefully that was accidental. On the other hand, perhaps you’re merely hung up on semantics...
Here’s a look at the methodology behind the survey:
"For many of the contractual provisions the [Negotiating Committee] has provided a recommendation....the NC takes its direction from the membership and we are relying upon the pilots to thoroughly examine and discuss the background material and proposals before approving or rejecting them..."
I’d say that the committee's asking for ‘direction about a recommendation/proposal’ is pretty much the same as your ‘seeking permission’ - wouldn’t you?
The survey you refer to (and the preamble that accompanied it) DO indeed contain questions that ask the membership for direction in forcing the retirees to become part of the solution by cutting their benefits. (With NO input from those retirees, I might add.) If you’re an active ACPA member you know all this from the info you’ve received.
Perhaps it’s only my take on what you wrote Flytdeck, but you also make it sound as if this notion was never considered and that ACPA has now confirmed it NEVER was. We both know it most definitely was a proposal, ergo the survey questions. After all, the NC wouldn’t waste ink asking for direction about proposals that they aren’t considering for the negotiating table...would they?
In actual fact the MEC has now informed the NC and the Pension Committee to forget about involving the retirees. If you’ve read the recent MEC Newsletter #21 it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read between the lines. (Hint: If the apology expressed in it doesn’t quite do it for you, then words like “renewed direction” and “the NC is to be advised” should speak volumes on their own.)
I suspect the hand of the new Chair in all of this. IMO, he’s a man of high moral standards - as well as being one very brave hombre for taking the job! - and I'd like to think that when he assumed office he was appalled at the direction the NC had gone.
The whole idea of involving the retirees without their consent was a callous and repugnant concept. Its architects are the “snakes’ bellies” that I referred to earlier.